New AP story on Microsoft

They just keep on coming. Read the rest of this post...

Microsoft, please keep letting your general counsel speak

Microft's General Counsel, Brad Smith, seems to have a career death wish. The man just can't shut up, and he can't stop digging a deeper and deeper hole for his bosses.

Now, remember, Smith is the guy who pretty much created this entire debacle for Microsoft. He's the guy who met with the employee gay group. And let me remind you of what happened at that little meeting:

At the April 4 meeting, Smith told members of GLEAM, the gay and lesbian employees group at Microsoft, that the company had switched its official stance to "neutral" on the bill, and took personal responsibility for the decision. He characterized the shift as part of a broader general review of company policy designed to more precisely formulate criteria for determining when Microsoft should involve itself in "social issues," but also disclosed the pressure that had been brought to bear on him by Hutcherson.

Yes, Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith is personally responsible for axing the gay rights bill.

He's also the guy who met with the religious right preacher and, according to the preacher in a new article in Seattle's "The Stranger" (the alternative weekly that broke this story last week), Smith told the preacher that the company was still supporting the civil rights bill when they met earlier this year. This totally contradicts what Microsoft is now claiming - namely, that they didn't JUST drop their support, i.e., because the preacher pressured them.

Hutcherson said that he asked for a meeting with Microsoft after becoming upset that two company employees had testified in favor of the bill on February 1. He first met with Smith and three other lower-ranking executives on February 23.

At that meeting, Smith made it clear to the pastor that the company supported the bill, Hutcherson said. Smith told him, he said, that the company had recently been asked by GLEAM, the gay and lesbian employees group at Microsoft, to come out in favor of same-sex marriage, but the company had said no. Smith went on to say that Microsoft did support the anti-discrimination legislation, and he described it as a “civil rights issue”—a red flag for Hutcherson, who is African American—Hutcherson said. The pastor recalled asking Smith a question: “You won’t stand up for two men or two women getting married, but you will put your power behind a guy who wants to dress up in a dress and come to work?”

Smith replied, according to Hutcherson’s recollection, “That’s our policy. We thought this is a good bill to stand behind.”

Funny, that's not what Smith says now. Smith says they decided LAST FALL OR WINTER to be neutral. There's more:

[The religious right preacher Ken Hutcherson] said that eventually Smith agreed to meet with him again sometime in mid-March.

At that meeting, “[Smith] said, ‘We are going to be neutral. This is the conclusion we’ve come to,’” Hutcherson said.

Again, this is consistent with what the gay employees allege as well, that Smith told them in early April that the company had "switched" its view to neutral - not that the change had occured 5 months prior to that.

It's funny how both sides, the gays and the evil pastor, seem to agree on one thing - Microsoft General Counsil Brad Smith is the bad guy in this whole affair. He's the one who supposedly told both that he had just recently changed Microsoft's position on the bill to "neutral" partly as a result of pressure from the preacher. Amazing how numerous witnesses at separate meetings with Smith supposedly got the story wrong but SMITH got it right in both cases.

Oh but there's more. Remember the openly-gay state representative who was the chief proponent of the gay rights bill? Look what he had to say about Brad Smith in the first Stranger story:

State Rep. Ed Murray, a gay Democrat representing Capitol Hill and the prime sponsor of the bill, confirmed that Smith also told him about the pressure from Hutcherson during an awkward and at times heated March 29 conference call in which they discussed the company's decision to end its active support for the bill.

Now, isn't that amazing. A THIRD person and a THIRD conversation with Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith in which Smith allegedly linked the religious right pastor's pressure to the company having ONLY RECENTLY dropped support for the bill. But all three sources, from three different meetings, are wrong about what happened at those meetings, and Brad Smith is right about each one. Amazing coincidence, isn't it?

And of course, he wouldn't be doing his job if Microsoft's wonderful general counsel didn't give yet another quote to tick off the gay community, effectively blaming us for this entire scandal. In the new Stranger article Smith says:

“I regret the company is being depicted by some as a company not committed to those principles [of diversity].”

Yes, well, Brad, I'd say we regret that Microsoft is foolish enough to keep you on the payroll, but I'd actually have to take that back. We're pleased as punch that you're not yet paying the price for your handling of this entire situation.

I mean, it appears that you're the one who messed up relations with the gays, who messed up relations with the preacher, who messed up relations with the openly-gay member of the state legislature who is not only one of the most powerful politicians in the state but who also oversees the committee you need for your company's expansion, and you are publicly blaming America's civil rights community for the entire situation Microft finds itself in.

And then you turn around and mouth off to the press blaming the victim. All that does is fuel the flames of this controversy, fan the media, and tick off gays and their allies even more.

So, Mr. Gates, if you're reading this blog, please give Brad a big fat raise. He's making our job easy.

Then again, you could always fire Smith, blame the entire mess on him, go back to your original pro-gay positions on everything and we could all move on. Read the rest of this post...

Spanish Cardinal says gay marriage will lead to Auschwitz death camps

Would somebody tell these idiots to just shut and go away already. How dare a Catholic cardinal speak in such a manner? Yes, Spain permitting gays to wed will lead to death camps. Though perhaps he's right. If the Catholic church and America's Taliban have their way, this may very well be the direction we're heading. And let's face, Pope Hitler Youth knows a thing or two about Nazism. Read the rest of this post...

This just in...

US House votes overwhelmingly to rescind corrupt GOP ethics committee rules that basically castrated the entire committee. Na na na na na. Read the rest of this post...

Air America gets the Secret Service while the religious right gets nothing?

Air America's apparently inappropriate joke about Bush and gunshots gets a Secret Service investigation but the religious talking SERIOUSLY about how Stalin had the right idea about what to do about judges when he murdered millions of people, THAT apparently doesn't raise an eyebrow. This is how dictatorship starts, folks - an extreme government starts to use its police state powers against political opponents in an arbitrary and partisan fashion. We should be in the streets demanding a similar investigation of the religious right for threatening judges.

Here liberal non-profits, non-profits, I have a treat for you... Read the rest of this post...

Tech mag bashes MSFT

I hate when they get off message. Apparently this was a big week for Microsoft and we got them off message. I'm sorry. Hopefully next week will be better. Oh wait, no it won't. Because you still haven't come clean and fessed up to your mistake. Oh well, the war goes on.

From CRN:

Microsoft is now caught between the evangelical right and liberal lefties, not a pretty spot. You gotta think that the company had hoped to be garnering gushing headlines this week over 64-bit Windows and Longhorn rather than this brouhaha. To parrot the company's own flackies, the hubbub has caused a lot of "off message" chatter.

But isn't it kind of refreshing that not even Microsoft can control the buzz even at WinHEC, its annual love fest/strategy session with hardware partners? You get the feeling that Gates, Ballmer, Allchin et al. have watched too many reruns of "The Ten Commandments" and absorbed a Pharaoh-like mindset when it comes to press, partners and users. They seem to think the Pharaoh's "so it is written, so it shall be done" mantra applies to them and their pronouncements. After all the false starts around Longhorn and its much-celebrated, now modularized, pillars, they still think we should be agog about that operating system. Sorry fellahs, you're gonna have to prove it.

Actually, the analogy to Cecil B. DeMille's "Commandments" —a cult fave--continues. Even though the Pharaoh decreed that all Jewish first-born sons be dispatched to prevent the emergence of a threat, the notable exception was Charlton Heston, er Moses. As Ralph Reed could probably tell you, Moses lived on, much to the Pharaoh's detriment.

Read the rest of this post...

Jon Stewart beats up on Microsoft

UPDATE: It might help if I gave you the real link. Try this. Love that man. Read the rest of this post...

Another open thread, while I peruse the news

More Microsoft updates on the way - how fun! Read the rest of this post...

Boehner v. McDermott: Why it matters to bloggers

Yesterday's edition of The Hill had a piece about an ongoing legal battle launched by Congressman John Boehner (R-OH) against Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA).

McDermott’s legal predicament stems from his leaking to several newspapers a transcript of an audiotape recorded by a Florida couple with eves-dropping equipment of a conference call of GOP leaders on how to handle issues surrounding then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

Boehner sued McDermott for violating his privacy and McDermott has since admitted that he provided the tape to reporters.

McDermott, however, has consistently argued that the First Amendment protected his decision to share confidential material with the media.

In these days of the DeLay scandal, it's easy to forget how contentious things were back in the heyday of Newt Gingrich. His hubris brought him down. And a few missteps along the way illuminated the issue. One of those missteps was that conference call among GOP House leaders that is at the subject of the case.

A couple in Florida overheard the conversation on their scanner. When they figured out what was going on, they taped it. They handed the tape to Rep. Jim McDermott who was the ranking Democrat on the Ethics Committee investigating Gingrich. McDermott gave the tape to the press.

So, why is Boehner suing? John Boehner was on that conference call from his cell phone in Florida. It's because of him that the call could be taped. Boehner (who is one of the "tort reformers" in the House - hypocrite) got a lawyer and sued McDermott back in 1998. This case has been up and down in the Courts for years. In the latest go round, Boehner prevailed for the first time. He was awarded $60,000 in damages and $50,000 in punitive damages -- plus legal fees which are over $600,000 so far. The D.C. Court of Appeals upheld that decision last week.

So why should this case interest bloggers -- on both sides of the spectrum? A Supreme Court case, Bartnicki v. Vopper, with similar facts found in favor of a reporter based on the First Amendment. However, despite that decision, a lower court determined that the facts in the McDermott case were different because he knew the tape was illegally obtained. In a law review article, "Tales of the Tapes" which appeared in the Fall 2004 issue of "News Media and the Law," author Grant Penrod explained the cases and how they affect journalists:

The issue is incredibly important for the news media, said Lee Levine, a media attorney who represented Vopper at the Supreme Court.

"Are we going to permit the government to regulate truthful transmission [of information] on matters of public concern because of someone else's illegality?" he said. On a practical level, reporters regularly receive information that arguably has some flaw in how it was obtained, such as through a leak or a whistleblower, he added.

Okay, you have to know this is serious if I am quoting law review articles. But this is key....McDermott got a very hot and salient piece of information -- which was factual -- and provided it to the media. And, it was a big, big story for the major newspapers at the time. But, the two folks who obtained it, did so illegally. McDermott had nothing to do with how the information was obtained. But now, McDermott may be found liable.

It seems to me that Boehner is pursuing this case out of political vengeance. He desperately wants to be back in leadership. McDermott is a great target for the right wing. His position on the Ethics Committee helped bring down Gingrich which they've never forgotten. And, McDermottt is a stalwart liberal who never wavers.

This case impacts bloggers who get tips and information all the time. If Boehner's case holds, every blogger could be liable for the dissemination of information provided to them by sources.....if the source didn't get that info. legally and the blogger had any knowledge of how it was obtained. "Tales of the Tape" provided this analysis:

Before Boehner, Levine said it was assumed that if the media did not participate in an illegal interception or recording, publication of the contents of the recording was protected by the First Amendment, but that is no longer clear.

"What is clear," Levine says, "is that if you receive an illegally obtained document . . . literally over the transom without any forewarning that it is coming and it is on a matter of public importance, you should be OK in publishing."

Yikes. It doesn't sound that clear...and "should be OK" isn't all that comforting. This will have a chilling effect. Even the MSM gets it. The major papers and networks have filed amicus briefs in the case on McDermott's side.

So Boehner is out for vengeance against McDermott. In that quest, he could seriously stifle the flow of information. Fortunately, this case isn't over yet. McDermott is appealing and it will probably end up in the Supreme Court. It is costing McDermott a bundle....which is probably part of the plan, too.

Pay attention to this one, folks. Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

Have at it. Read the rest of this post...

Hastert Caves on Ethics: I'm willing to step back

Signaling a major retreat, Speaker Denny Hastert is going to notify Leader Pelosi that the GOP will repeal of some of the controversial ethics provisions according to the Associated Press:

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, leading a Republican retreat, said Wednesday he stands ready to scrap controversial new ethics rules, possibly by day's end.

"I'm willing to step back," Hastert told reporters after a closed-door meeting with members of the GOP rank and file.

Later, in a brief Capitol interview, he said he expected the full House to vote on reversing the rules. Asked whether that would take place later in the day, he replied, "I hope so."

The Democrats have played this one masterfully. The ethics issue has to be hurting badly for Hastert to make such a major concession. And, of course, the devil is in the details with that crowd. But, it sure looks like Hastert is caving to pressure.

I don't know what's more laughable, the GOP denial that they changed the ethics rules to help Tom DeLay or their assertion now that this reversal will help Tom DeLay clear his name. Whatever. This whole ethics issue is about Tom DeLay. Period. Read the rest of this post...

Microsoft and Ralph "The Right Hand of God" Reed

Robert L. Jamieson Jr. kicks butt.

Love his column today in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer...hometown paper for our friends at MSFT. Seriously, read the whole piece. But a few highlights:

The man dubbed "The Right Hand of God" has fingerprints all over Microsoft. Still.

Ralph Reed is more than a Friend of Bill -- he is a paid GOP consultant, getting $20,000 a month from Microsoft to help shape the software behemoth's image in the global marketplace.

Judging from Reed's past -- he was the former head of the evangelical Christian Coalition -- that means serving up vitriolic viewpoints about gays and lesbians.

Judging from Microsoft's actions -- the company just yanked its support of a legislative bill in Olympia to protect gays -- the Reed brand of insight is shining through.

Jamieson lays out very clearly what Microsoft doesn't seem to comprehend:

From the outside, it appears Microsoft was influenced by Reed -- a man who has President Bush's ear, has a following of millions of conservative Christians who think homosexuality is a sin, and who pushes the evangelical agenda every chance he gets.

Microsoft may not have hired Reed for his social views, but once he gets in the door it's a full-on Holy Roller revival.

Jamieson gives Ballmer and Gates credit for soul-searching. Of course, if they had stayed the course, that wouldn't be necessary. But his final line is killer:

This is also true: When Microsoft faced the question of the gay rights bill it let the right hand of God draw the line in the sand in the wrong place.

Read the rest of this post...

Seattle Paper on Microsoft and Reed, adds Norquist and throws in a touch of DeLay

Microsoft's home town paper, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, is keeping up the drumbeat on the on-going saga over Microsoft and gay rights. This one includes Ralph Reed and adds a couple of the other leaders of the right wing to the mix:

The article starts with a very strong defense of Ralph Reed from the company, which is not a surprise since the title of the piece is "Microsoft defends ties to Ralph Reed":

Microsoft Corp. is paying social conservative Ralph Reed $20,000 a month as a consultant, triggering complaints that the well-connected Republican with close ties to the White House and to evangelist Pat Robertson may have persuaded the company to oppose gay rights legislation.

Reed, who got his start in politics by running the Christian Coalition for Robertson and who had a senior role in President Bush's 2004 campaign, is a leading figure in the social conservative movement that spearheaded opposition to gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, gambling and other issues.

Microsoft spokesman Mark Murray said the company has hired Reed on several occasions to provide advice on "trade and competition issues." He said Reed's relationship as a consultant with the software company extends back "several years."

Despite Reed's prominent role as a leader of the homophobic right wing, Microsoft claims they never used him to consult on "social policy issues:"

"Microsoft has worked with Century Strategies for the past several years on trade and competition issues," Murray said. "Century Strategies has never advised Microsoft on any social policy issues -- nothing related to anti-discrimination legislation."

Okay, maybe they can hire Phyllis Schlafly to work on their next microchip since areas of expertise don't seem to matter. They do love those hard-core right wingers out there in Redmond apparently. Because from the P-I, we also learn that Microsoft also had in its stable of consultants Grover Norquist, the guru of the right wing:

Nor is Reed the first prominent Republican hired by the company. Records show that Microsoft paid Grover Norquist $60,000 in 1999. Norquist is founder of Americans For Tax Reform, an influential conservative group that has close ties with the White House and with Republican leaders in Congress.

The P-I also gives credit where credit is due -- to Americablog:

Invoices show that Microsoft is currently paying Reed's firm, Century Strategies, $20,000 a month.

Murray confirmed that the invoices, which were first reported by the Web log Americablog, were authentic.

What would a scandal be these days without some kind of link to Tom DeLay. The P-I raises the question of whether these relationships are all part of Tom DeLay's nefarious campaign to control the lobbying world:

Republican leaders, most notably House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, have told companies that they need to shift business to Republican-leaning firms or lobbyists if they want a reception on Capitol Hill. The initiative is called the K Street Project, after the street in Washington, D.C., where many lobbyists have offices.

So, we are now entering week two of this scandal which shows no sign of abating. In fact, it keeps growing. Read the rest of this post...

Bush Trying To Cover Up Explosion In Terrorism On His Watch

Last year, Bush's State Department lied to the American people by underreporting the number of terrorist incidents in an attempt to pretend Bush had done a better job fighting the bad guys than the numbers indicated. It had to resubmit a new report with adjusted numbers and admit its "naughtiness."

This year, Condi Rice just decided not to report any terrorist incident numbers at all. Too late, the Washington Post reports:

The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

In Iraq, terrorist incidents increased "dramatically" from 22 to 198, which puts the lie to Bush's claim that things have stabilized since the handover to an interim government last summer.

"Last year was bad. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counterterrorism official, who first revealed the decision not to publish the data.

After a week of complaints from Congress, top aides from the State Department and the NCTC were dispatched to the Hill on Monday for a private briefing. There they acknowledged for the first time the increase in terrorist incidents, calling it a "dramatic uptick," according to participants and a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).

And before you think we're getting all partisan:

Both Republican and Democratic aides at the meeting criticized what a GOP attendee called the "absurd" explanation offered by the State Department's acting counterterrorism chief, Karen Aguilar, that the statistics are not relevant to the required report on trends in global terrorism. "It's absurd to issue a report without statistics," said the aide, who is not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. "This is a self-inflicted wound by the State Department."

Read the rest of this post...

Microsoft employees reportedly circulating letter to Gates and Ballmer

Raw Story has the intel. Read the rest of this post...

Congress Awash In Sleazy Junkets

USA Today reports that privately financed travel by Congressmen and Senators has totaled about 5400 trips in the last five years -- half of them paid by non-profits who don't need to disclose who is paying the bills. The total cost of these private junkets? About $16 million.

For a government that spends billions of dollars, is it really necessary to ransom our politicians' souls for a measley $16 million just so they can cozy up to big business and take nice golfing trips?

Here's an easy fix: ban ALL travel financed by outside groups of any nature. If you are a Congressman or Senator you CANNOT accept any travel -- not a private jet to Scotland to hit the links; not a taxi down the street.

Create an annual slush fund for travel for these politicans, divide it up evenly, with more for seniority and more for heads of committees, who'd presumably need to travel more. Let them spend the money as they will, be it vacation or fact-finding mission, but EVERY SINGLE TRIP will be detailed and every one will be reported annually by law to their constituents, including price, length and purpose of stay and so on. Once they're spending OUR tax money, see how often they go on that "fact-finding" trip to London or Fiji, with money spent on golf and tennis and scuba diving. Since lobbyists and non-profits would be BANNED from giving them these gifts, it would be one less source of sleaze in our government. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

News? Read the rest of this post...

The overwhelming smell of sleaze with the GOP

Bush says that he doesn't do nuance and sees everyting as black or white but now we're seeing a steady trend of overlooking corruption not to mention ethical and moral oversights. Heaven forbid the administration ever takes action to punish corporate robbers who misled American investors. Payment to Halliburton after over-charging the government (i.e. American taxpayers), also no problem. Manipulating intelligence risking US foreign policy, this American lives and spending American money seems to be OK as well and what the heck, why not let those same people represent us at the UN. Now we have the president coming out supporting the poster-boy for political corruption, Tom DeLay.

While I love the new emphasis that this brings to DeLay as well as the Social Security program that loses ground every day, what does this say about an adminstration that talks about morals? What does this say about the ethics of this team? Does the GOP hold Americans in such contempt that they feel it's OK to rub this continuous stream of abuses in our faces?

Yes, Bush is taking a risk here and he's used to taking risks but sooner or later the truth somehow always catches up. The smell just gets worse and worse every day. Read the rest of this post...

More love for Big Petroleum by Bush

Now that he's done showing his deep friendship for the Saudi Crown Prince (I can't say I would list Saudi Arabia as a close friend, let alone a friend of the US) Bush is throwing out another bone for the petroleum business because apparently the energy boondoggle just wasn't enough. Now he's offering up closed military bases to be used as refineries. I can only imagine the nice deal that they would be getting on those properties.

If the US is giving up in the short term and planning long term, why in the world is Bush and the GOP focusing primarily on the petroleum business? If we're talking long term, shouldn't alternative energies be the primary focus instead of an afterthought or not a thought at all by the GOP Congress?

Are we talking about the United States of America or the United States of Oil? This is a complete fraud that is being shoved down our throats. Read the rest of this post...

The only real question for Bolton is

...why do you continue to want to cook the books to make information match your political goals? Congress can prepare dozens of questions but it really just boils down to the widespread tactic these days both in Washington and Wall Street of cooking the books. Wall Street has been pretty mild with those who have been active cookers and in Washington, baking information to fit your political goals seems to take you places without much of a cost either, until now.

As Americans, shouldn't we expect more? Read the rest of this post...

Republicans On The Run #3: GOP Caves On Ethics Committee

The Washington Post reports that the GOP has caved on the ethics committee.

House Republican leaders, acknowledging that ethics disputes are taking a heavy toll on the party's image, decided yesterday to rescind a controversial rule change that led to the three-month shutdown of the ethics committee, according to officials who participated in the talks.

I especially loved their "positive" spin on this.

A congressional aide said that changing the rules will mean "a couple of great days for Democrats" but that Republicans have calculated this will deny them long-term use of the ethics issue heading into next year's midterm elections.

Uh actually, changing the rules to coddle a serial ethical violater, trying to insist that even someone indicted on serious charges could be party leader and punishing Republicans who try to hold everyone -- including DeLay -- to reasonable ethical standards is still going to play badly in 2006. Read the rest of this post...

Republicans On The Run #2: GOP Coalition on Social Security Falling Apart

The Washington Post reports that the senate Finance Committe holding hearings on President Bush's plan to dismantle Social Security reveals the Dems are united and the Republicans are badly divided.

One GOP witness repeatedly disparaged the White House's approach to Social Security changes, bolstering Democratic contentions that it would lead to politically untenable benefit cuts. Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.) questioned the wisdom of adding trillions of dollars in federal debt in the coming decades to finance the president's plan. And Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) seemed to signal intractable opposition to converting part of the defined Social Security benefit to variable returns from stock and bond investments.

I'd give credit to the Dems for doing a good job but with one caveat: the Republicans have been idiotically bad on this and so many other issues that simply standing still has allowed the Dems et al to look like political geniuses. When the other guy is shooting himself in the foot, all you have to do is avoid the ricochet. Read the rest of this post...

Republicans On The Run #1: Bolton Nomination REALLY In Trouble

The vote on Bolton was pushed back to May 12. And now Bush's worst fear has appeared: the committee looking into Bolton is actually going to gather facts. Yep, the Senate panel is going to interview up to two dozen people in the next two weeks (including some who support him). As stories of more distortions of intelligence by Bolton pile up, it's looking very very bad. My prediction: Bolton bows out before the vote. Read the rest of this post...